What is Aston Martin up to?

[canam]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept11.html

So much for all the 'smoke and mirrors' straight talking around the Le Mans debacle. Now we hear that the engine is ok but the aero was poor.

One look at the car and it would not take a genius to figure that one out.

It appears to be pretty obvious that the design team did not know what they were doing yet continued to spend other people's money. But hey, we have heard that one before, haven't we.

[vyselegend]

Originally Posted by The Badger

AMR should now concentrate on their GT2 Vantage , get that running for the teams that have shown faith in their mark .

While doing this , they could continue developing their P1 engine , which according to them wasnt the big issue we all thought it was . More an issue with building race engines before the nessessay development was finished on the dyno ..... and up yours Baretsky who is pro diesel anyway .

I think focusing on GTE is in contradiction with any development of the P1 program, given the limited resources they have. With the level of the competiton in both categories being so high, it might not be realistic to fight on both front on their own.

Since LMP1 is the true playing field for car manufacturers, that's where they should put all their efforts for now. Who knows what they could do against a yet unprepared Toyota, if they put up something strong, benifiting from their experience. Also, I believe it's capital for the brand's image to stand up again after the AMR-One fiasco. It's a question of principle that one shouldn't lay down in defeat.

GTE is a private teams affair, so maybe AMR could rely on clients to develop the car. I know it's all about finding money, but in the racing world money is sponsorship (for the main part), and finding heavy sponsors shouldn't be a problem for a team runing a car with such marketing value (being James Bond car, whith that British cachet, noble engine, great history etc...).

Originally Posted by gwyllion, quoting Mike Fuller

But we're told that fundamentally the engine was solid. That leaves the chassis. We're told the CFD-only developed AMR-One (known internally as the R-17) suffered from very high drag and little downforce.

I've got a deep respect for Mike and his sources, but this first statement sounds very doubtfull, considering what we witnessed at Ricard and Le Mans. I guess it depends of one's definition of the word "solid"...

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by canam

One look at the car and it would not take a genius to figure that one out.It appears to be pretty obvious that the design team did not know what they were doing yet continued to spend other people's money. But hey, we have heard that one before, haven't we.

One look at the Panoz LMP1 , and it wouldnt have come up to par with the then currant designs either .

Furthermore , it was 20 mil of Dave Richards money .

[CTD]

Originally Posted by canam

So much for all the 'smoke and mirrors' straight talking around the Le Mans debacle. Now we hear that the engine is ok but the aero was poor.

One look at the car and it would not take a genius to figure that one out.

It appears to be pretty obvious that the design team did not know what they were doing yet continued to spend other people's money. But hey, we have heard that one before, haven't we.

Easy now. What Gwyllion posted isn't news, it's been out for sometime now.

Besides, Audi made an equal bold design choice with the R15, so wouldn't say that the design team wasn't knowing what they where doing. The problem was more that they tried a new technology in LMP which wasn't proven. (CAD design with almost none real track testing)

Prodrive is a proven team with a good development team (just look at the Lola/Amr), but under limited time, limited budget and a huge pressure of performance, it's hard to make a ground breaking car that is somewhat successful.

[knighty]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

A new B12/60 based chassis with the A-M nose and I6T (sorted ofcourse) would be a better weapon IMO.

I'm thinking exactly the same.......surely AMR will not be allowed to run the grandfathered V12 in 2012, therefore will have to replace it with either a 2.0 turbo or a 3.4 NA gasoline.........running the I6 turbo would atleast give them some credability that the engine was actually ok........or am i missing something????

[JAG]

An AMR chassis with rebaged Judd (for example) wouldn't work, but stick the I6T into any chassis and Aston Martin would recieve positive publicity, the engine is what defines a manufactuer.

AMR may as well become an engine supplier and use the best customer chassis of the day for their factory program.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by knighty

I'm thinking exactly the same.......surely AMR will not be allowed to run the grandfathered V12 in 2012, therefore will have to replace it with either a 2.0 turbo or a 3.4 NA gasoline.........running the I6 turbo would atleast give them some credability that the engine was actually ok........or am i missing something????

You're not missing anything, but is this a case of sunk cost? The I6 probably still needs a lot of development (hence money) to make it right. Maybe AMR has done a lot of development on this engine since Le Mans, but I am sort of skeptical of that. Is it really worth it to pour a lot of money into a project when they'll still get beat quite badly by Audi, Peugeot, and Toyota? And maybe Rebellion too if Toyota gives them something close to what the factory team has? Plus, maybe the HPD should go on the list too.

Maybe there is hope if they want to go to the ALMS. There's hope of winning there, but the V12 is still capable and legal to win there too. If privateers see it as a great alternative to the Judds and Zyteks, then maybe there is hope too, but I don't see teams like OAK and Pescarolo hitching their dreams to the AMR I6 at the moment.

[JAG]

Aston Martin maybe small compared to their manufactuer rivals but let's not forget they are a road car manufactuer, they are not only developing a new line of road cars but also I6 engines and hybrid systems to meet future legislation.

There is a difference between Aston Martin road cars and AMR but there's still crossover in a number of areas, it really shouldn't be beyond them to produce a competitive engine to succeed the V12.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

I think focusing on GTE is in contradiction with any development of the P1 program, given the limited resources they have. With the level of the competiton in both categories being so high, it might not be realistic to fight on both front on their own.

Since LMP1 is the true playing field for car manufacturers, that's where they should put all their efforts for now. Who knows what they could do against a yet unprepared Toyota, if they put up something strong, benifiting from their experience. Also, I believe it's capital for the brand's image to stand up again after the AMR-One fiasco. It's a question of principle that one shouldn't lay down in defeat.

GTE is a private teams affair, so maybe AMR could rely on clients to develop the car. I know it's all about finding money, but in the racing world money is sponsorship (for the main part), and finding heavy sponsors shouldn't be a problem for a team runing a car with such marketing value (being James Bond car, whith that British cachet, noble engine, great history etc...).



I've got a deep respect for Mike and his sources, but this first statement sounds very doubtfull, considering what we witnessed at Ricard and Le Mans. I guess it depends of one's definition of the word "solid"...

I think it's pretty clear what the source meant: while unreliable (what we saw at Ricard and Le Mans), the engine produces decent power. The engine has solid fundamentals. You also have to understand there were whispers that the engine was fatally flawed. Our source scuppers that completely. And of course, if the engine is dragging a parachute around with it, it will never show as having particularly good performance. Our own power estimates were certainly skewed by that unknown, though even there there are hints that the AMR-One was draggier than expected.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Mike, with the failure of the Virgin F1 car and now this, do you think the nail is in the coffin of CFD only car design?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

Aston Martin maybe small compared to their manufactuer rivals but let's not forget they are a road car manufactuer, they are not only developing a new line of road cars but also I6 engines and hybrid systems to meet future legislation.

There is a difference between Aston Martin road cars and AMR but there's still crossover in a number of areas, it really shouldn't be beyond them to produce a competitive engine to succeed the V12.

Yeah, but their budget is rumored to be a fraction of what Audi and Peugeot spend. Toyota and eventually Porsche is just going to make the gap bigger. Small teams have occasionally competed with much bigger budgeted teams, but it requires extreme focus and execution. I'm not sure if AMR has shown either lately. AMR has struggling LMP and GTE projects and that's just on the ACO front. The lack of testing and preparation with the AMR-One show that execution isn't perfect either. I don't know how to solve it, but maybe they should just focus really hard on one project (GTE perhaps with an ALMS LMP1 project with the grandfathered car for now). Try to get some success there and then hopefully turn that into commercial success that leads to a better funded new project. The other thing is that AMR can't sit around with their hands out waiting for charity regulations that help just them if they want to win in P1.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

Mike, with the failure of the Virgin F1 car and now this, do you think the nail is in the coffin of CFD only car design?

Couple of things to think about. I always felt it folly to do a CFD-only car in a top level series where your competitors are doing both model tunnel programs and extensive CFD. In essence you're arriving at the track having only done half the work. And I can't imagine Virgin was doing double/triple/quadruple the CFD development to make up for that. I know the CFD guys will pat themselves on the back about how it shortens lead times. But if I have a model program taking a peak at 40+ iterations a day coupled with the CFD team simply adding to those numbers, you're never going to beat that as long as there's a reason to do both.

And in regards to the Aston, remember, CFD is garbage in, garbage out. And WiRe has shown that CFD-only is viable at the LMP level having produced the quick ARX-02a and various -01 variants. Point is, the ARX cars are to LMP that the WiRe Virgins were to F1.

[JayBMS]

I remember an interview where GH-C said they had a way aero testing the car. He never said what just that it was the 'actual car'

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

Mike, with the failure of the Virgin F1 car and now this, do you think the nail is in the coffin of CFD only car design?

I think doing only CFD is not the right way to go .

Pescarolo ran for a long time with no windtunnel testing , but when the car did wind tunnel testing , it was faster than the Audi R8 over a lap .

The only people who seem to have gottan away with CFD is Wirth with the Acura/HPD , but Im sure at this stage they have also done so .

Both Audi and Pug do both , thats the way I reckon .

[canam]

Originally Posted by The Badger

One look at the Panoz LMP1 , and it wouldnt have come up to par with the then currant designs either .

Furthermore , it was 20 mil of Dave Richards money .

Where did that figure come from? If they spent £20m, then they really didn't know what they were doing!!! Lola would do a better job for less than a quarter of the price! Makes Prodrive look even more inept.

As to DR spending his own money, you have got to be joking. Short arms, Deep pockets. Love to know the source of this statement...DR PR?

DR spends other people's money.

[The Badger]

To be honest , I read that somewhere , cant remember where . But IIRC , it was Prodrive PR . Can anyone back that up please ?

Now , if you buy a Lola , you cant expect to be quicker than the next Lola team but , If you commision Lola to build a car for you , thats another matter entirely .

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Couple of things to think about. I always felt it folly to do a CFD-only car in a top level series where your competitors are doing both model tunnel programs and extensive CFD. In essence you're arriving at the track having only done half the work. And I can't imagine Virgin was doing double/triple/quadruple the CFD development to make up for that. I know the CFD guys will pat themselves on the back about how it shortens lead times. But if I have a model program taking a peak at 40+ iterations a day coupled with the CFD team simply adding to those numbers, you're never going to beat that as long as there's a reason to do both.

And in regards to the Aston, remember, CFD is garbage in, garbage out. And WiRe has shown that CFD-only is viable at the LMP level having produced the quick ARX-02a and various -01 variants. Point is, the ARX cars are to LMP that the WiRe Virgins were to F1.

That last line should read, "Point is, the ARX cars are NOT to LMP that the WiRe Virgins were to F1."

[vyselegend]

Originally Posted by JAG

An AMR chassis with rebaged Judd (for example) wouldn't work, but stick the I6T into any chassis and Aston Martin would recieve positive publicity, the engine is what defines a manufactuer.

AMR may as well become an engine supplier and use the best customer chassis of the day for their factory program.

Really? Would you state then (and more to the point, do the general audiance believe?) that Mazda won ALMS this year, and Toyota won LMS, while Renault won the F1 WC?

I think not. All over the press, as well as on all internets fan forums, the correct answears will be Dyson, Rebellion and Red Bull.

Car makers have learnt that lesson the hard way, spending $ billions on customer F1 engines programs, to realise in the end that their engines were only spoken about when they failed, whilst the private teams had all the glory when they won (BMW with Williams, Mercedes with Mac Laren, Renault with Williams then Benetton, Red Bull etc...)

IMO Aston got more publicity making the headlines for their lame AMR-One than they would ever receive if their engine beated competition in a private Lola, Pesca, or what you want.

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

I think it's pretty clear what the source meant: while unreliable (what we saw at Ricard and Le Mans), the engine produces decent power. The engine has solid fundamentals. You also have to understand there were whispers that the engine was fatally flawed. Our source scuppers that completely. And of course, if the engine is dragging a parachute around with it, it will never show as having particularly good performance. Our own power estimates were certainly skewed by that unknown, though even there there are hints that the AMR-One was draggier than expected.

Ok, my bad. Actually in french the word "solid" defines something reliable (by oposition to "fragile"), so the phrase stroke me because the engine barely managed to hold together for two LM laps. I understand in that context it was not used that way.

Still, I will continue having doubts on that powerplant as long as I don't see it perform decently in any racecar, no matter what AMR says. Call me St Thomas if you wan't but I don't think I'm alone.

[Motorsports]

[AGD]

There is nothing shocking in this article, but it is confirmed that two AMR-One tubs have been sold to DeltaWing. The article speculates that this is death of the AMR-One program. I guess that is pretty safe to say. There is also speculation about the two car GTE Vantage WEC program. Again, that is not a new rumor. You gotta like this quote from Richards though:

Aston Martin chairman David Richards, whose Prodrive company runs AMR, was insistent last month that the car would race again, though he claimed it "might be in a different guise." That comment appears to be consistent with the DeltaWing deal.

Oddly enough, that might be the most truthful thing Richards as said in years!

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111019/ALMS/111019844

Are there any new updates on how Jota and anyone else is dealing with the "death" of the AMR-One?

[The Badger]

Any more info on a works effort with the Vantage ?

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Double Post

[FordCosworthPanoz]

What, so are you saying the AMR One is and always will be considered a complete failure and that the project is cancelled for 2012??????????


Shocking news....


Hopefully Aston manages to improve the GTE Vantage for next year, it will be good to see their fantastic driver lineup get back into what could possibly be considered competitive cars, if they manage to sort out the reliability bugs. Good to see they are now focusing in something they may actually have a chance of winning at.

[The Badger]

They should snap up Pedro Lamy ..... great in a GT car .

[AGD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Any more info on a works effort with the Vantage ?

I'm assuming the rumor is that the 2 car GTE-Pro Vantage program will be with the factory team.

I do wonder if the Lola-V12 ALMS rumor is dead though. I have not heard anything about that in a while.

Originally Posted by FordCosworthPanoz

What, so are you saying the AMR One is and always will be considered a complete failure and that the project is cancelled for 2012??????????


Shocking news....


Hopefully Aston manages to improve the GTE Vantage for next year, it will be good to see their fantastic driver lineup get back into what could possibly be considered competitive cars, if they manage to sort out the reliability bugs. Good to see they are now focusing in something they may actually have a chance of winning at.

Oh, but the AMR-One will live on in a way through the DeltaWing! What a legacy those tubs will have. Two wasted grid spots in 2011 and one wasted spot in 2012. It's like the gift that keeps giving. Or something like that.

As for the Vantage, they have quite a bit of work to do to get those competitive. On the other hand, they should continue to have pretty favorable regs so at least Richards and GH-C should not complain about taht. At least you figure they would not, but I guess we have to remember who we are talking about here!